https://www.wibc.com/news/local-news/popular-gaming-commentator-town-gencon-claims-he-was-assaulted-bar

"popular"

So, who wants to suggest what he did/said to entice the other person into assaulting him? I've seen a lot of this guys stuff, and its clear as day that he is an instigator. A lot of his youtube videos are so cringy I can't stand to make it through them all the way sometimes.

I won't condone violence however, the person who flew off the handle and went after him was wrong. Violence never solves the problem, and it only gives ammunition to hurt you back with.

Violence? In an establishment that exists to serve alcohol? I'm SHOCKED, shocked I tell you. It's almost like they need some professional ruffian to toss the intoxicated belligerents out!

<sarcasm, obviously>

But seriously, he wants a statement of safety from Gen Con? He wasn't even in Gen Con, he was in an independent, live music bar.

Did you really just say he was an instigator for expressing his opinions ... this... this is not off to a good start already.

I do agree however violence is never the answer.

My theory? Its a bar and people drink at bars. Alcohol and idiots already have all the ingredients necessary for violence without having to say anything in particular to provoke it.

 Formosa wrote:
Did you really just say he was an instigator for expressing his opinions ... this... this is not off to a good start already.

He's a and a troll with a history of trying to start trouble. There's no explanation of just what "expressing his conservative views" consisted of and how far over the line it might have been, but it wouldn't be at all surprising if it turns out that someone just got tired of his and gave him a well-deserved punch.

And agreed on the absurdity of expecting Gencon to give any kind of statement or bans or whatever for an alleged event that happened somewhere else in the city with no affiliation with the convention.

 Formosa wrote:
Did you really just say he was an instigator for expressing his opinions ... this... this is not off to a good start already.

I do agree however violence is never the answer.

I'm saying he comes off as the type of person who instigates drama in order to grow his following and expand his business. Many of his videos are uber-level cringe using some of the most blatant click-bait titles I've seen in years. He is well known for harassing people locally at magic events usually in the form of comments, nothing physical. He intentionally seeks out people who disagree with him and then pushes them until they blow. So, in short, no, it's not good to assault anyone, no matter the reason. However, I'm not surprised that someone hauled off and smacked him a couple of times, it's what he very obviously wants to happen so he can continue his victim narrative he's been riding since November 2017 when WoTC banned him.

I've seen a video saying that the person that assaulted him has already been identified. It's a good start.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/761578.page#10093815

Also, this thread seems to be better suited for this discussion. So we should merge them together?

It seems an excellent idea to bring the concept of wargaming out of the conference hall and into the real world.

Perhaps the gentlemen involved might also dress up in cosplay outfits to ameliorate the verisimilitude of their pugilistic asserverations.

GenCon should award some kind of accolade or prize for the most convincing representation.

Was at GenCon last year, will probably be there next. I dont knw anything about this dude, but the only people I saw who had issues at the event or at any other places outside of it were those that went out of their way to make them. It was an awesome event filled with great people.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Was at GenCon last year, will probably be there next. I dont knw anything about this dude, but the only people I saw who had issues at the event or at any other places outside of it were those that went out of their way to make them. It was an awesome event filled with great people.

I've not been in over a decade, but I had the same experience way back in 05/06.

Worry not, this dude is just a pot stirrer.

there is a better thread for this over in Dakka Discussions.

Can we get a mod to either lock this thread or merge the two?

 Togusa wrote:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/761578.page#10093815

Also, this thread seems to be better suited for this discussion. So we should merge them together?

Honestly, the "allegedly" bit seems an important note compared to the other thread title. It notes the fact that we don't have nearly all of the information on the event that happened, the context of the situation, etc. Plus the fact that that thread has kind of been dragged off topic into whether the entire city constitutes Gencon or not...


On the topic itself, I had to look the guy up to figure out who he was, but he seems to be a pretty terrible person who incites harassment. I don't generally condone violence, but I can easily see how this situation might have happened.

Sidenote, when I googled this, I was kind of startled by the headlines that popped up - basically summed up as "this guy was assaulted by a SJW!!!". I'll admit, I didn't read/watch those links, but whenever you see a title like that, you basically know what the content, the tilt, and the side they take is, regardless of how much or little information available to them.

 Formosa wrote:
Did you really just say he was an instigator for expressing his opinions ...

If you actually bothered to look him up at all, he is "popular" for spreading far right, fascist views. So much so he would be fringe even on 4chan's largest dumpster fire threads.

If he said the same thing in that bar that he spreads under the shield of online anonymity, namely that people are subhuman by the virtue of being born in the 'wrong' category, or by daring to have political views stating that everyone is equal, I can easily see how he got hit, and rightly so. Since when hate crime is just "opinion"? Especially when you deliberately provoke and goad others with it?

Is it time for the "Is it a good idea to punch Nazis?" merry go round again? That's always fun.

Plus he's not above lying about things and telling his fans to harrass people and disrupt events.

 Irbis wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Did you really just say he was an instigator for expressing his opinions ...

If you actually bothered to look him up at all, he is "popular" for spreading far right, fascist views. So much so he would be fringe even on 4chan's largest dumpster fire threads.

If he said the same thing in that bar that he spreads under the shield of online anonymity, namely that people are subhuman by the virtue of being born in the 'wrong' category, or by daring to have political views stating that everyone is equal, I can easily see how he got hit, and rightly so. Since when hate crime is just "opinion"? Especially when you deliberately provoke and goad others with it?

I’ve watched his videos, he is not a facist, nor does he spread facist views, the guy is just right wing, by American standards he isn’t even that far right, by U.K. standards he is extremely far right however.

And don’t bring in the stupidity of hate crime laws, they brought those into the U.K. and I am ashamed that they did so, no Government has the right to police speech, the sheer arrogance of it, now you can’t criticise any other minority or ideology without running the risk of that stupidly thought out law landing you a fine or even prison time.

The guy is a douche pure and simple, and yep, every opinion should be protected, even the ones we don’t like as long as it doesn’t incite violence, and given how the attacker was allegedly a far leftie... I wouldn’t be surprised.

If you have to resort to violence to stop someone saying something you don’t like, or condone said violence, you have already lost the debate.

But none of this matters, because if it comes out that he brought this on himself then any credibility he had is gone, if it was over his political views online then the other fella deserves to be punished appropriately.

 Formosa wrote:

But none of this matters, because if it comes out that he brought this on himself then any credibility he had is gone, if it was over his political views online then the other fella deserves to be punished appropriately.

You really believe that? That the Pepe-meme guys, the guys who believed Pizzagate, the guys who equate the Gunn situation and the Rosanne situation, the guys who believe there's an SJW conspiracy hiding under every pillow and get their news from Bannon and Bannonesque online gak-factories, those people will ever, ever accept that this guy's account of martyrdom at the hands of an evil "Social Justice Nazi" was anything other than unalloyed truth from the mouths of the angels themselves?

It could turn out that the whole thing was a complete fabrication and his fanbase and the neonazi boosters who've latched on to the story as another example of "sjw atrocities" would still back him to the hilt.

In the more likely event that he's just presenting a wildly one-sided account of an incident where two people got into an argument in a bar and one of them said something so reprehensible the other belted them for it, he'll be a hero for these goons, up there with those Charlottesville rally scum.

It's technically within the realms of possibility that another giant arsehole just walked up and decked him out of nowhere because he didn't like their politics, but given this guy's history I'll believe that version of events when it comes out of the mouth of a police officer giving an official statement.

 skyth wrote:
Plus he's not above lying about things and telling his fans to harrass people and disrupt events.

Was he one of the guys who went around just asking questions about the Gamergate girls who received threats, wondering if they exaggerated or even made up the threats to play the victim? I remember that being a very popular mode of attack.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Did you really just say he was an instigator for expressing his opinions ... this... this is not off to a good start already.

He's a and a troll with a history of trying to start trouble. There's no explanation of just what "expressing his conservative views" consisted of and how far over the line it might have been, but it wouldn't be at all surprising if it turns out that someone just got tired of his and gave him a well-deserved punch.

If I ever run into Anita Sarkesian I have your full support in punching her repeatedly in the face, right Peregrine?

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Did you really just say he was an instigator for expressing his opinions ... this... this is not off to a good start already.

He's a and a troll with a history of trying to start trouble. There's no explanation of just what "expressing his conservative views" consisted of and how far over the line it might have been, but it wouldn't be at all surprising if it turns out that someone just got tired of his and gave him a well-deserved punch.

If I ever run into Anita Sarkesian I have your full support in punching her repeatedly in the face, right Peregrine?

If you can't tell the difference between someone who disagrees with you politically and someone who is a blatant troll, panders to wannabe-Nazis, and encourages his followers to harass people he doesn't like, well, I don't really know what to say to you.

 Irbis wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Did you really just say he was an instigator for expressing his opinions ...

If you actually bothered to look him up at all, he is "popular" for spreading far right, fascist views. So much so he would be fringe even on 4chan's largest dumpster fire threads.

If he said the same thing in that bar that he spreads under the shield of online anonymity, namely that people are subhuman by the virtue of being born in the 'wrong' category, or by daring to have political views stating that everyone is equal, I can easily see how he got hit, and rightly so. Since when hate crime is just "opinion"? Especially when you deliberately provoke and goad others with it?

Exaggerate much? I seriously dare you to prove anything you just stated. Yes, his views are right of center, not far right.

Sounds like a compelling case to build a Thunderdome

 Peregrine wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Did you really just say he was an instigator for expressing his opinions ... this... this is not off to a good start already.

He's a and a troll with a history of trying to start trouble. There's no explanation of just what "expressing his conservative views" consisted of and how far over the line it might have been, but it wouldn't be at all surprising if it turns out that someone just got tired of his and gave him a well-deserved punch.

If I ever run into Anita Sarkesian I have your full support in punching her repeatedly in the face, right Peregrine?

If you can't tell the difference between someone who disagrees with you politically and someone who is a blatant troll, panders to wannabe-Nazis, and encourages his followers to harass people he doesn't like, well, I don't really know what to say to you.

Change "wannabe-Nazis" to "wannabe-commies" and you just described Anita.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Change "wannabe-Nazis" to "wannabe-commies" and you just described Anita.

Communism and Nazism are not even remotely morally equal.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Did you really just say he was an instigator for expressing his opinions ... this... this is not off to a good start already.

He's a and a troll with a history of trying to start trouble. There's no explanation of just what "expressing his conservative views" consisted of and how far over the line it might have been, but it wouldn't be at all surprising if it turns out that someone just got tired of his and gave him a well-deserved punch.

If I ever run into Anita Sarkesian I have your full support in punching her repeatedly in the face, right Peregrine?

As your financial advisor, the above action should only be performed if you:

A). Are willing to do the time for your crime.

And

B). Are prepared to roll in piles of sweet, sweet cash after you monetize your experience via podcast, speaking engagements, a YouTube channel, and your own personal cologne and/or jeans brand.


Sadly, that's the world we live in.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Plus he's not above lying about things and telling his fans to harrass people and disrupt events.

Was he one of the guys who went around just asking questions about the Gamergate girls who received threats, wondering if they exaggerated or even made up the threats to play the victim? I remember that being a very popular mode of attack.

You and Yodhrin seem to both be left leaning. I have to ask, since you two seem to have different opinions on this matter, Is accepting someone's story expected, or are you a blind sheep? By your post, even questioning a story is wrong. By his opinion, not questioning it is wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Change "wannabe-Nazis" to "wannabe-commies" and you just described Anita.

Communism and Nazism are not even remotely morally equal.

You're right. Her opinions are significantly less factual and more fascist.

 cuda1179 wrote:
You're right. Her opinions are significantly less factual and more fascist.

You are not dealing with reality here.

Please explain how she is a fascist. I would like to hear this.

 Peregrine wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Change "wannabe-Nazis" to "wannabe-commies" and you just described Anita.

Communism and Nazism are not even remotely morally equal.

That's because the Nazis didn't kill half as many people as the Commies.

I don't know the details about what happened at the bar, so I can't say what happened, but I've seen guys like him before and I've seen them bite off more than they can chew.

In my high school we had a guy who was like this. He decided to start making fun of a girl in my class who recently returned to school after being out with lung cancer at lunch to a guy next to him. She wore a beret to cover up her head while she regret her hair. So he makes some stupid joke about her cancer and her hat. The guy next to him just starts beating the hell out of him. The guy he made the joke to was her older brother.

The fight was broken up by teachers. The guy was taken to the nurse's and while my classmates brother got was a bit of a talking to right there in the lunchroom before they let him sit back down. I got to witness the whole thing from one table over and I can tell you that not even the teachers felt sorry for that guy getting handed a beating for what he said and to who.

Now I don't think that I endorse violence because I don't feel bad having watched a guy say something terrible to the wrong person and trigger them to violence and not feel bad for them at all. Sometimes though, when guys like that start shooting off their mouths, they say the wrong thing to the wrong person, and understandably get punched for.

Then again the guy who got punched at a bar by another guy, while they both attended Gencon might be completely innocent of any wrongdoing. It's for the police to handle. All we'll likely get out of either side though is an extremely biased version of events.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Change "wannabe-Nazis" to "wannabe-commies" and you just described Anita.

Communism and Nazism are not even remotely morally equal.

That's because the Nazis didn't kill half as many people as the Commies.

Communism is an economic system. Any people it killed are the result of implementation failures.

Nazism is a murder system. Any people it killed are by design, and fully intentional.

Using the same rationale you are going to use to prove that “Communism killed 20 million (or 100, or 2 gorillion)”, I can prove that liberal capitalism kills around 10 million or more a year.

Let's all just chill the F out here.

I've listened to some of this guy's youtube videos. He does in fact come off as a bit of a whiney complainer. That being said, some of his stuff is spot on.

Magic cards are crap quality compared to what they used to be. WOTC did ban people that didn't technically violate their TOS. Removing any kind of gender pronoun from Magic cards is a bit eyerolly. WOTC stating they want to monitor your social media does seem a bit 1984. Having Anita Sarkesian as a guest speaker at comicon was, at best, a questionable decision.

I really don't find him all that entertaining. I feel his videos could be cut down by 50% and be better for it. Yes, he is right leaning and some of the stuff he states is questionable.

The guy that attacked him is known for his leftist views, and wore a "Punch a Nazi" shirt. That tells you the mentality of this guy. Do I feel that Jeremy is hamming this up for attention, yes, definitely. I'm not taking his narration of what happened as gospel. It is obvious that something happened though, and short of Hambly physically starting the fight the other guy is in the wrong. PERIOD.

As for GenCon taking some kind of action, I am also torn. If this had happened at the location, or directly outside of it, then it would have been a no-brainer. It didn't happen there though. What they do know is they have an attendee (who apparently had a booth there according to some sources) who is open to starting physical violence with a pseudo-celebrity. If it were my event I'd make it well known that I gave that guy a VERY stern talking to, he's being watched, and that one stray fart will be enough to get them ejected.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Verviedi wrote:
[Communism is an economic system. Any people it killed are the result of implementation failures.
.

I feel that that is true, however, I also feel that Communism has a limited means to ensure implementation. An inherent flaw in a system is responsible for it's own shortcomings.

I view many of the deaths by Communism the same way I feel about a guy that rents a leaky canoe without life vests to a group of non-swimmers. Did they only die because they couldn't bail it out fast enough? Technically, yes. Still the renter's fault though.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Plus he's not above lying about things and telling his fans to harrass people and disrupt events.

Was he one of the guys who went around just asking questions about the Gamergate girls who received threats, wondering if they exaggerated or even made up the threats to play the victim? I remember that being a very popular mode of attack.

You and Yodhrin seem to both be left leaning. I have to ask, since you two seem to have different opinions on this matter, Is accepting someone's story expected, or are you a blind sheep? By your post, even questioning a story is wrong. By his opinion, not questioning it is wrong.

I'm willing to believe someone attacked him. I would like for the police to issue a statement.

However, I remember how the Gamergate girls received threats and vitriol and how many Dakka members came out solidly on the side of "they're making it up" and just wanted to comment on it because I bet those people are now solidly behind this Quartering guy while those who backed the GG girls are not likely to believe him.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
[

I'm willing to believe someone attacked him. I would like for the police to issue a statement.

However, I remember how the Gamergate girls received threats and vitriol and how many Dakka members came out solidly on the side of "they're making it up" and just wanted to comment on it because I bet those people are now solidly behind this Quartering guy while those who backed the GG girls are not likely to believe him.

I too would like a police statement. If Hambly is lying about stuff, I hope he gets his comeuppance and his youtube channel pays the price. As for the GamerGate thing, I was one of those people that was in the middle. I'm sure they did receive a good deal of harassment, but I also believe that (like Hambly) it was exaggerated, and in at least one case demonstrably false. The "fearing for my life so much I had to leave my home" started to crumble when it was revealed she left for a vacation she booked weeks in advance.

 Verviedi wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Change "wannabe-Nazis" to "wannabe-commies" and you just described Anita.

Communism and Nazism are not even remotely morally equal.

That's because the Nazis didn't kill half as many people as the Commies.

Communism is an economic system. Any people it killed are the result of implementation failures.

Nazism is a murder system. Any people it killed are by design, and fully intentional.

LOL, no. Communism is a totalitarian state, same as Nazism, except it murdered more people. I get that you're in love with Fat Kim, but you don't get to call Soviet and North Korean gulags and death camps and purges "implementation failures". If you're a Commie apologist, you're worse than a neo-Nazi, and I won't have any further part discussing anything with you. Buh-bye

Gotta say I'm with JohnHwangDD on this one.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Let's all just chill the F out here.

Nice dodge there, making ridiculous comparisons and demonstrating that you don't know what "fascism" means and then hiding behind "let's all chill the F out" when called on it.

Magic cards are crap quality compared to what they used to be. WOTC did ban people that didn't technically violate their TOS. Removing any kind of gender pronoun from Magic cards is a bit eyerolly. WOTC stating they want to monitor your social media does seem a bit 1984. Having Anita Sarkesian as a guest speaker at comicon was, at best, a questionable decision.

MTG cards are poor quality? It's funny, but from what I've heard the most recent set got great reviews and a lot of the old stuff was pretty bad. There might be a valid argument about product quality, but his videos aren't calm and rational discussion of game design principles.

WOTC banning people is not an issue. AFAIK all of the cases that were mentioned were clear TFG behavior and people trying to hide behind the technicality that the TOS didn't explicitly ban their TFG behavior. Zero sympathy there.

Removing gender pronouns is just basic writing clarity. Using "their" instead of the awkward "his or her" saves space and sounds a lot more natural. The only reason to use "his or her" is the popular misconception by elementary school writing teachers that they/their as singular pronouns for a person of unknown/unstated gender is incorrect, when in reality it's the normal way people speak with hundreds of years of precedent behind it. Any benefit to non-binary people who feel excluded by binary male/female pronouns is a nice side effect, but even if that wasn't an issue at all it would still be the right thing to do.

Monitoring social media sounds 1984ish, but what are we really talking about here? Watching for stuff like the facebook group (which got people banned) where TFGs were rating female pro tour players on how hot they were and sharing offensive memes? No problem there, disruptive people are still a concern even if they're only being disruptive and TFGish on social media. Trying to monitor and ban people for stuff that isn't TFG behavior or harmful to the game? Not ok, but I'd like to see some evidence that WOTC is doing this.

Won't disagree with you on Anita Sarkeesian. She gets way more hate than she deserves, but she isn't really saying anything new and there are better options.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
LOL, no. Communism is a totalitarian state, same as Nazism, except it murdered more people. I get that you're in love with Fat Kim, but you don't get to call Soviet and North Korean gulags and death camps and purges "implementation failures". If you're a Commie apologist, you're worse than a neo-Nazi, and I won't have any further part discussing anything with you. Buh-bye

Uh, no. That's just ignorance of history and what communism actually means.

Communism is a proposed economic system involving collective ownership of capital. Violence is not an inherent part of it, communists would be perfectly happy if it was implemented through democratic vote and passing the appropriate laws. Communists are open to violent revolution, but only in the same way that republicans fought revolutions against the monarchy. The murders under Stalinism are not an inherent part of communism. They are the result of a murderous dictator who just happened to be communist, much like anti-communist dictators have murdered their perceived enemies. A typical communist is not going to look at a successful communist society with no gulags or murders and say "you know what we need is some mass murder".

Nazism is an ideology specifically dedicated to genocide. Exterminating the lesser races is its primary goal, an inherent part of the ideology that can not be separated from it. In fact, it is such an important goal of Nazism that the Nazis continued to divert increasing amounts of resources towards their genocide efforts even as they were losing the war, accepting a greater chance of defeat if it meant getting to kill more people. A typical Nazi would look at a hypothetical Nazi state where genocide is not occurring, wonder WTF is wrong with them, and demand to have more murders.

If you can't tell the difference between the two and why Nazism is far worse then it's a sad comment on your lack of morality.

 Peregrine wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Let's all just chill the F out here.

Nice dodge there, making ridiculous comparisons and demonstrating that you don't know what "fascism" means and then hiding behind "let's all chill the F out" when called on it.

MTG cards are poor quality? It's funny, but from what I've heard the most recent set got great reviews and a lot of the old stuff was pretty bad. There might be a valid argument about product quality, but his videos aren't calm and rational discussion of game design principles.

WOTC banning people is not an issue. AFAIK all of the cases that were mentioned were clear TFG behavior and people trying to hide behind the technicality that the TOS didn't explicitly ban their TFG behavior. Zero sympathy there.


Monitoring social media sounds 1984ish, but what are we really talking about here? Watching for stuff like the facebook group (which got people banned) where TFGs were rating female pro tour players on how hot they were and sharing offensive memes? No problem there, disruptive people are still a concern even if they're only being disruptive and TFGish on social media. Trying to monitor and ban people for stuff that isn't TFG behavior or harmful to the game? Not ok, but I'd like to see some evidence that WOTC is doing this.

.

Okay, gunna take this by sections.

First, I know what "Fascism" means. I know it has MANY meanings. Do you? Here is a list of some of those meanings: 1. A person who is very intolerant or domineering in a particular area 2. Oppressive control. 3. political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood 4.Espousal of an idealist, vitalist, and voluntaristic philosophy, normally involving the attempt to realize a new modern, self-determined, and secular culture 5.a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong dictatorial control. I'd say that much of what Anita has done fits into these categories. Care to back up your claim that Hambly's followers are "Nazis"?


Magic cards: Yes, I was talking about the physical card itself, not the game mechanics. They aren't exactly produced well.

I also find it quite ironic that you support banning people for "TFG" behavior that doesn't violate TOS agreements, yet you have been quite animate that GenCon shouldn't take any action against Hamby's attacker.

When WOTC is looking out for TFG behavior on social media they have a double standard. One of their own employees and semi-prominent personalities recently started a social media group doing pretty much the same thing that landed others heavy-handed bans. Their response: nothing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
[
If you can't tell the difference between the two and why Nazism is far worse then it's a sad comment on your lack of morality.

To make a movie parallel: Nazis are Freddy Kruger, Communism is Jason Vorhees.

Freddy has an agenda. He's out to kill specific people and wants them to suffer. He actively comes after you no matter where you are if you are on his radar. He literally gets off on being evil

Jason isn't necessarily evil per say. He's technically mentally handicapped, so him being "evil" might not even be a thought process for him. He really is only driven by delusional visions of his mother's rationales . He's perfectly happy to sit in his hillbilly shack and not hurt anyone if they don't come too close.


Personally, I'd rather not be around either, as they are both prone to violence, and in the end Jason has the higher body count per movie and wins when they battle each other.

I've got no time for the guy, but from watching some of his videos promoted by other YouTube channels during his ban from WoTC, he is whiney. But, he is spot on in some areas and issues.

But, what makes me more worried is how far some left leaning people have gone. As an example, I'm a libertarian that leans slightly left more than anything. But according to some in my FLGS I'm a far right supporter. WUT.

Also, violence is never right. Violence is the tool of oppression against other ideas or views.

 Dr. Mills wrote:


But, what makes me more worried is how far some left leaning people have gone. As an example, I'm a libertarian that leans slightly left more than anything. But according to some in my FLGS I'm a far right supporter. WUT.

Also, violence is never right. Violence is the tool of oppression against other ideas or views.

I have left leaning friends that have called me hard-core right. I look at them with a face. I literally asked one once " So, when exactly was I "hard right"? Was this when I supported gay marriage (before Clinton supported it)? Was this when I supported Trans-person rights? Was this when I supported certain EPA regulations? Was this when I disavowed wars (Literally any of them Kosovo onward)? Was this when I was doing volunteer work for disadvantaged inner city youth? How about when I said Bernie Sanders was a better candidate for Democrats?"

I'll admit that I do support right wing causes when it comes to guns, immigration, and some foreign policy. That makes me right of center. But they think that since I don't believe Palestinians are totally innocent victims and that The Young Turks aren't marvels of media that I'm one step away from alt-right.

 cuda1179 wrote:
First, I know what "Fascism" means. I know it has MANY meanings. Do you? Here is a list of some of those meanings: 1. A person who is very intolerant or domineering in a particular area 2. Oppressive control. 3. political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood 4.Espousal of an idealist, vitalist, and voluntaristic philosophy, normally involving the attempt to realize a new modern, self-determined, and secular culture 5.a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong dictatorial control. I'd say that much of what Anita has done fits into these categories.

That's a ridiculously broad definition, and I have no idea where point 4 is coming from. Actual fascism, as it existed as a political ideology and not just a label for anyone a person disagrees with, is right-wing and extreme nationalistic authoritarianism. The term for dictatorial control without the right-wing ideology and extreme nationalism is authoritarianism, not fascism.

And no, Anita Sarkeesian has not done anything that reasonably fits into those categories. She isn't a nationalist, she isn't advocating the use of state power to crush all opposition, and she isn't arguing for the need for a powerful state to defend against external threats. The closest you can come is singling out her statements about victimhood to fit one part of the definition. But those involve a less-powerful group being abused by a more powerful group, not the fascist standard of blaming society's decline on a scapegoat minority to justify the excesses of the dictatorship and direct the population's anger away from it.

Care to back up your claim that Hambly's followers are "Nazis"?

Not personally, but other people commented on his ties to 4chan's wannabe-Nazi sewer.

Magic cards: Yes, I was talking about the physical card itself, not the game mechanics. They aren't exactly produced well.

Shrug? They're cheap cardboard either way. I'm not sure what people are expecting here.

I also find it quite ironic that you support banning people for "TFG" behavior that doesn't violate TOS agreements, yet you have been quite animate that GenCon shouldn't take any action against Hamby's attacker.

I said no such thing. I said that Gencon is not obligated to take action and that their TOS does not cover a fight at a random bar somewhere else in the city. They are of course free to decide that the attacker is not welcome and kick him out.

When WOTC is looking out for TFG behavior on social media they have a double standard. One of their own employees and semi-prominent personalities recently started a social media group doing pretty much the same thing that landed others heavy-handed bans. Their response: nothing.

You'll have to provide some examples here.

 Peregrine wrote:


That's a ridiculously broad definition,


Shrug? They're cheap cardboard either way. I'm not sure what people are expecting here.


You'll have to provide some examples here.

I got some of those definitions from the Oxford Dictionary, so not "ridiculously broad". You might not like those definitions, but they are broadly accepted.

When it comes to the Card quality, I have moderately used cards bound with rubber bands I got in 2002 that look to be in better shape than some of the new decks coming strait out of the packaging. I feel there is a justification for feeling salty on this.

Travis Wu was banned for 1 year from ANY official gaming or tourneys and was stripped of $35000 in yearly accommodation for starting (but never contributing to) a PRIVATE facebook group called "Magic for Bad" where awful memes could be laughed at. This action was prompted by WotC employee (and spouse of prominent Magic pro player) Athena. Athena herself has now created a sub reddit for, and I quote, "gak posts". In her own words she was looking for the best and most offensive funny stuff. She hasn't posted anything herself, but then again neither did Travis Wu.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I got some of those definitions from the Oxford Dictionary, so not "ridiculously broad". You might not like those definitions, but they are broadly accepted.

Broadly accepted or not, they are not correct. The dictionary definition recognizes the common use of the term, as a synonym for authoritarianism, but the common use is incorrect. And #4 is just nonsense, "modern, self-determined, secular culture" is not what fascism is about at all. You need to remember that the dictionary is not a political science textbook. It exists to tell people what someone means when they say "my boss is a fascist", even if the use of the term in that context is inaccurate.

When it comes to the Card quality, I have moderately used cards bound with rubber bands I got in 2002 that look to be in better shape than some of the new decks coming strait out of the packaging. I feel there is a justification for feeling salty on this.

I'll have to trust you on that one since I haven't bought any MTG cards in a long time, but TBH it seems like a problem blown way out of proportion. Do these people complain that the edges of their cardboard board game tokens get scraped up with use? Perhaps this matters to the people who view MTG cards as a financial investment to make a profit from rather than a game to play, but as game pieces I don't see the big deal.

Travis Wu was banned for 1 year from ANY official gaming or tourneys and was stripped of $35000 in yearly accommodation for starting (but never contributing to) a PRIVATE facebook group called "Magic for Bad" where awful memes could be laughed at. This action was prompted by WotC employee (and spouse of prominent Magic pro player) Athena. Athena herself has now created a sub reddit for, and I quote, "gak posts". In her own words she was looking for the best and most offensive funny stuff. She hasn't posted anything herself, but then again neither did Travis Wu.

Travis Wu deserved his ban entirely, and should just be thankful that it wasn't a permanent one. I don't know what content the WOTC employee is posting/inviting, but if it's the same kind of stuff then I wouldn't have any sympathy if she got fired for it. There may be a point that WOTC is treating their own employees by a much more generous standard of behavior when they shouldn't be, but all of Hambly's whining about TFG getting banned for being TFG is nonsense.

I will give Hambly credit for calling WotC out on their rather intentional blind eye towards pedos and sex offenders running in their ranks. I'll even give him a break on sounding whiny on it. It really took a lot of pressure for them to do anything, let alone the right thing.

Capitalism caused millions of deaths. It is the comparison for communism, not fascism.

Indian and Irish famines under the British empire killed millions, and they were allowed to happen to maintain an ideal of free market capitalism.

That is not to say communism is good, I prefer capitalism moderated by social democratic politics. But there are some absolutely crappy arguments going on in this thread.

Also, more OT: Chat gak, get banged.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Change "wannabe-Nazis" to "wannabe-commies" and you just described Anita.

Man it kills me how stupid this gets. What that idiot wants has nothing to do with communism, particularly as she's been gifting off the social justice movement since she started.

But when it comes to getting hit at random, I will happily point out some folks are just roving offenses to human decency and never seem to realize that. This guy sounds like one, eventually they run into someone who doesn't care enough to not hit them. Particularly around drunk people.

I'd love to know the 'political belief' expressed that got him socked.

 Da Boss wrote:
Capitalism caused millions of deaths. It is the comparison for communism, not fascism.

Indian and Irish famines under the British empire killed millions, and they were allowed to happen to maintain an ideal of free market capitalism.

That is not to say communism is good, I prefer capitalism moderated by social democratic politics. But there are some absolutely crappy arguments going on in this thread.

Also, more OT: Chat gak, get banged.

Actually, there is a great deal of evidence that shows that capitalism is one of the greatest driving forces of peace on this planet. It has both stopped conflicts currently happening, and prevented them from starting. That private industry has produced more medical treatments and cures than government funding ever has.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Change "wannabe-Nazis" to "wannabe-commies" and you just described Anita.

Man it kills me how stupid this gets. What that idiot wants has nothing to do with communism, particularly as she's been gifting off the social justice movement since she started.

But when it comes to getting hit at random, I will happily point out some folks are just roving offenses to human decency and never seem to realize that. This guy sounds like one, eventually they run into someone who doesn't care enough to not hit them. Particularly around drunk people.

I'd love to know the 'political belief' expressed that got him socked.

I'm guessing that belief was anything further to the right than what is supported by Bernie Sanders. Everyone today is "alt right" for having conservative ish views.

Is Jeremy a click-bait drama-spinner ? Undoubtedly, but with MTG sales sliding and OP event attendance collapsping it's all he and the majority of Magic YT sorts have left to do

Did he deserve to be attacked ? Of course not, but its not Gen-Con's problem, its a Police matter, but click click ka-ching

Guys, this is the internet equivalent of yellow press. You are like 50-60 years old ladies watching their TV programe about who marry what one.
Dont give this people atention.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Capitalism caused millions of deaths. It is the comparison for communism, not fascism.

Indian and Irish famines under the British empire killed millions, and they were allowed to happen to maintain an ideal of free market capitalism.

That is not to say communism is good, I prefer capitalism moderated by social democratic politics. But there are some absolutely crappy arguments going on in this thread.

Also, more OT: Chat gak, get banged.

Actually, there is a great deal of evidence that shows that capitalism is one of the greatest driving forces of peace on this planet. It has both stopped conflicts currently happening, and prevented them from starting. That private industry has produced more medical treatments and cures than government funding ever has.

I'm sorry, but great deal of evidence sounds like bollocks. There are two main theories why conflict is on the decline. There is the democratic peace thesis and the hegemonic stability theory (this being the most realistic in a sense). I have never heard about capitalism as one of the 'greatest' driving forces behind peace (because most attempt are terribly repackaged democratic peace theories that wilfully ignore WW1 and 2), while having spend considerable time in international security circles. Lets not forget that certain Central American countries had a population death toll percentually equal with Stalinism because of US supported death squads, that's also capitalism at work.

The medical treatment one is bollocks to, a review of patents between 1988 and 2005 in the US found that half came into being either because government funded or public efforts. Its basically 50-50 while private companies end up holding most of the patents driving up cost for profit. Its inefficient and costs lives, which is why the non branded medicine sector is so huge, basically ripping off expensive patents against US law is why 3/4ths of the world can get affordable medicine.

 Galas wrote:
Guys, this is the internet equivalent of yellow press. You are like 50-60 years old ladies watching their TV programe about who marry what one.
Dont give this people atention.

Too late. Just look at this thread--two pages, and we're already into Anita Sarkeesan being the Antichrist, fascism vs communism, the ethics of punching Nazis, a random axe being ground against WotC.....all from a bar fight that probably started from spilling someone's pint.

Welcome to 2018, when everything is all about the culture war.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
[

The medical treatment one is bollocks to, a review of patents between 1988 and 2005 in the US found that half came into being either because government funded or public efforts..

Citations please?

 Elemental wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Guys, this is the internet equivalent of yellow press. You are like 50-60 years old ladies watching their TV programe about who marry what one.
Dont give this people atention.

Too late. Just look at this thread--two pages, and we're already into Anita Sarkeesan being the Antichrist, fascism vs communism, the ethics of punching Nazis, a random axe being ground against WotC.....all from a bar fight that probably started from spilling someone's pint.

Welcome to 2018, when everything is all about the culture war.

You would be surprised how easily this comment could have been transposed to the 90's. The topics slightly change, the 'culture war' has been an almost permanent concept in Western society since at least WW2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
[

The medical treatment one is bollocks to, a review of patents between 1988 and 2005 in the US found that half came into being either because government funded or public efforts..

Citations please?

Sorry;
https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0917

A lot of private work is done on the basis of earlier public efforts.

Looks like you are misquoting your own article a bit.

 Jihadin wrote:
Sounds like a compelling case to build a Thunderdome

That implies there ever isn't a case that could get solved by a Thunderdome.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Looks like you are misquoting your own article a bit.

How so, half of patents have their basis in the public sector and that's for a country with a large powerful pharmaceutical industry. With more funding why wouldn't the public sector be able to achieve the same effect?

We found that government support—through publicly funded research—had a large indirect impact on pharmaceutical innovation. The direct effect of government support—that is, cases where the government owns the patents outright or has claims on the intellectual property involved in the drugs’ development—is more limited, but still large for the most innovative drugs, those whose applications received priority review by the FDA.

Capitalist medical industry is in it for the money (because that is what the private sector does, that's not a judgement, just an observation), not helping us, helping us is where the publuc sector usually steps in.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Elemental wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Guys, this is the internet equivalent of yellow press. You are like 50-60 years old ladies watching their TV programe about who marry what one.
Dont give this people atention.

Too late. Just look at this thread--two pages, and we're already into Anita Sarkeesan being the Antichrist, fascism vs communism, the ethics of punching Nazis, a random axe being ground against WotC.....all from a bar fight that probably started from spilling someone's pint.

Welcome to 2018, when everything is all about the culture war.

You would be surprised how easily this comment could have been transposed to the 90's. The topics slightly change, the 'culture war' has been an almost permanent concept in Western society since at least WW2.

Of course, and maybe it was nastier in the past, but it's never been this omnipresent. I suppose in the past, it took some effort to get involved in a public confrontation, whereas now anyone can pile in on their lunch break.

 Elemental wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Elemental wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Guys, this is the internet equivalent of yellow press. You are like 50-60 years old ladies watching their TV programe about who marry what one.
Dont give this people atention.

Too late. Just look at this thread--two pages, and we're already into Anita Sarkeesan being the Antichrist, fascism vs communism, the ethics of punching Nazis, a random axe being ground against WotC.....all from a bar fight that probably started from spilling someone's pint.

Welcome to 2018, when everything is all about the culture war.

You would be surprised how easily this comment could have been transposed to the 90's. The topics slightly change, the 'culture war' has been an almost permanent concept in Western society since at least WW2.

Of course, and maybe it was nastier in the past, but it's never been this omnipresent. I suppose in the past, it took some effort to get involved in a public confrontation, whereas now anyone can pile in on their lunch break.

It only feels more omnipresent I think, because we move in these circles. If you go outside and ask people about this case 99% of them would give you a blank stare. Even things like the MeToo movement have some name recognition but beyond that most people offline can't tell you much more than the basics of Hollywood did something bad. Its the switch between niche and public topics. The internet only allows us to hear about it more easily, but that still depends on where you look on the internet.

John Oliver did an episode on sexual harrasement and how we basically went in full circle from the 90's to now. But a lot of these topics have done so.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Elemental wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Elemental wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Guys, this is the internet equivalent of yellow press. You are like 50-60 years old ladies watching their TV programe about who marry what one.
Dont give this people atention.

Too late. Just look at this thread--two pages, and we're already into Anita Sarkeesan being the Antichrist, fascism vs communism, the ethics of punching Nazis, a random axe being ground against WotC.....all from a bar fight that probably started from spilling someone's pint.

Welcome to 2018, when everything is all about the culture war.

You would be surprised how easily this comment could have been transposed to the 90's. The topics slightly change, the 'culture war' has been an almost permanent concept in Western society since at least WW2.

Of course, and maybe it was nastier in the past, but it's never been this omnipresent. I suppose in the past, it took some effort to get involved in a public confrontation, whereas now anyone can pile in on their lunch break.

It only feels more omnipresent I think, because we move in these circles. If you go outside and ask people about this case 99% of them would give you a blank stare. Even things like the MeToo movement have some name recognition but beyond that most people offline can't tell you much more than the basics of Hollywood did something bad. Its the switch between niche and public topics. The internet only allows us to hear about it more easily, but that still depends on where you look on the internet.

John Oliver did an episode on sexual harrasement and how we basically went in full circle from the 90's to now. But a lot of these topics have done so.

Gotta say I was disappointed in that episode of LWT, usually the humour is layered on top of or used to lighten up a genuine and well-researched piece of journalism, but the sexual harassment segment was pretty flippant and superficial.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Gotta say I was disappointed in that episode of LWT, usually the humour is layered on top of or used to lighten up a genuine and well-researched piece of journalism, but the sexual harassment segment was pretty flippant and superficial.

In part I agree, but I think the issue is that sexual harassment really is a topic that doesn't fit the format of the show. Its nothing new and I assume most of the audience already has a good idea of what it entails. I think the interview really showed that its just another rehash of a topic that has been around forever and doesn't really have 'new' angles, while the jokes felt a bit cringy given the context (I understand its still meant as amusement but he seemed to struggle). LWT works better with deep and less known discussions.

Its still good to show how we go in circles though.

For what I understood, the guy claimed GenCon tried to censor interventions mentionning this affair on their live chat because they wanted to cover the guy who assaulted him.bar fight

Rumors then seem to spread quite fast in the Alt-Right sphere to go on some kind of crusade against evil SJW - left leaning GenCon censors who dared to hide the truth.

Apparently, facts are more leaning towards a bar fight, outside of GenCon event itself, who may or may not involve someone who was at the GenCon itself.

Yes, it looks pretty much as click-bait for the youtuber, and a good excuse for the Alt-Right to show the left conspiracy against them or something.

Not worth the attention, IMHO.

Try to keep it on topic folks. Many thanks!

 Sarouan wrote:
For what I understood, the guy claimed GenCon tried to censor interventions mentionning this affair on their live chat because they wanted to cover the guy who assaulted him.bar fight

Rumors then seem to spread quite fast in the Alt-Right sphere to go on some kind of crusade against evil SJW - left leaning GenCon censors who dared to hide the truth.

Apparently, facts are more leaning towards a bar fight, outside of GenCon event itself, who may or may not involve someone who was at the GenCon itself.

Yes, it looks pretty much as click-bait for the youtuber, and a good excuse for the Alt-Right to show the left conspiracy against them or something.

Not worth the attention, IMHO.

Has it been confirmed yet that the attack was politically motivated?

 Formosa wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:
For what I understood, the guy claimed GenCon tried to censor interventions mentionning this affair on their live chat because they wanted to cover the guy who assaulted him.bar fight

Rumors then seem to spread quite fast in the Alt-Right sphere to go on some kind of crusade against evil SJW - left leaning GenCon censors who dared to hide the truth.

Apparently, facts are more leaning towards a bar fight, outside of GenCon event itself, who may or may not involve someone who was at the GenCon itself.

Yes, it looks pretty much as click-bait for the youtuber, and a good excuse for the Alt-Right to show the left conspiracy against them or something.

Not worth the attention, IMHO.

Has it been confirmed yet that the attack was politically motivated?

As far as I've seen it's not even been confirmed anything actually happened, just the accusation. Has anyone not related to this chump or the other guy come forward yet? Have the police confirmed they've received a complaint?

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:
For what I understood, the guy claimed GenCon tried to censor interventions mentionning this affair on their live chat because they wanted to cover the guy who assaulted him.bar fight

Rumors then seem to spread quite fast in the Alt-Right sphere to go on some kind of crusade against evil SJW - left leaning GenCon censors who dared to hide the truth.

Apparently, facts are more leaning towards a bar fight, outside of GenCon event itself, who may or may not involve someone who was at the GenCon itself.

Yes, it looks pretty much as click-bait for the youtuber, and a good excuse for the Alt-Right to show the left conspiracy against them or something.

Not worth the attention, IMHO.

Has it been confirmed yet that the attack was politically motivated?

As far as I've seen it's not even been confirmed anything actually happened, just the accusation. Has anyone not related to this chump or the other guy come forward yet? Have the police confirmed they've received a complaint?

Good point

He has posted pictures of his police complaint and officer contact info. Necessary things blacked-out for privacy reasons.

It's the standard paradox, the only thing a tolerant society cannot tolerate is intolerance... as the latter will eventually lead to the end of a tolerant society

I like how people now is a douche bag and when they are punched for it they try to defend themselves on "They are repressing me!"

Is a bar. I have seen people get punched unconscious in a bar for a football discussion, a discussion of who pornstar has the biggest tits, or for all kind of political discussions.
Nobody is trying to "repress" the right of free speech of the oponent, at least not in a systematical and reasonable way, they just get angry and fight. The bar-culture is toxic and people that goes there get what they are looking for.

 cuda1179 wrote:
He has posted pictures of his police complaint and officer contact info. Necessary things blacked-out for privacy reasons.

Which proves nothing that everything he claimed afterwards in his videos actually really happened.

A police complaint only shows the story from the complainer's point of view.

 Sarouan wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
He has posted pictures of his police complaint and officer contact info. Necessary things blacked-out for privacy reasons.

Which proves nothing that everything he claimed afterwards in his videos actually really happened.

A police complaint only shows the story from the complainer's point of view.

I never said it was anything more than that. I was simply responding to a question on if a police report had been filed.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
[

The medical treatment one is bollocks to, a review of patents between 1988 and 2005 in the US found that half came into being either because government funded or public efforts..

Citations please?

now yours?

edit: sorry, I replied on previous page before seeing mods comment

 soundwave591 wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
[

The medical treatment one is bollocks to, a review of patents between 1988 and 2005 in the US found that half came into being either because government funded or public efforts..

Citations please?

now yours?

I sent a PM to Disciple of Fate with my citations, as a MOD asked us to remain on topic. That being said, I'll violate that this one time just to appease you. Also, I'll include why I think he was misquoting his own source.



I didn't want to clog up the Off Topic forum with a post that was off-topic. Anyway, you cited an article, and I'd love to discuss it further with you. I did find the article quite informative, thanks for sharing.

However, I did have some problems with what they classified as "public" developments. Things included in this were Public developments (which I agree should count), but they also included all work done by private industry that was even minorly funded by the public, or even work not funded by the public, but referenced material previously publicly funded. That's a bit misleading.

Don't get me wrong, I fully support having systematic research grants for our scientists and this does help spawn innovation in areas that aren't traditionally "profitable".


https://www.policymed.com/2011/02/nejm-the-private-sector-discoveries-account-for-79-90-of-pharmaceutical-products.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlechleiter/2015/05/19/debunking-the-five-big-myths-about-big-pharma/#61c83bf747bc

 soundwave591 wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
[

The medical treatment one is bollocks to, a review of patents between 1988 and 2005 in the US found that half came into being either because government funded or public efforts..

Citations please?

now yours?

We were told to drop it, lets in the favor of the thread. We've taken it to PM.

I see that Peregrine's "Punch a Nazi" philosophy is bearing fruit. A Nazi being anyone to the Right of Karl Marx...

Well done Peregrine. You're getting the society you wished for, where violence as a response to words is becoming normalized.

Don't expect sympathy when its YOU that is on the on the receiving end of that violence.

 Galas wrote:
I like how people now is a douche bag and when they are punched for it they try to defend themselves on "They are repressing me!"

You don't actually have to be a douche bag. You just have to be labelled a douche bag.

The truth of the accusation is superfluous to requirements.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I see that Peregrine's "Punch a Nazi" philosophy is bearing fruit. A Nazi being anyone to the Right of Karl Marx...

Well done Peregrine. You're getting the society you wished for, where violence as a response to words is becoming normalized.

Don't expect sympathy when its YOU that is on the on the receiving end of that violence.

 Galas wrote:
I like how people now is a douche bag and when they are punched for it they try to defend themselves on "They are repressing me!"

You don't actually have to be a douche bag. You just have to be labelled a douche bag.

The truth of the accusation is superfluous to requirements.

I also find it quite ironic that the only acceptable definition of "Fascist" seems to be one found in an "Intro to Political History 101" textbook, yet an all-encompassing vast net is used for the definition of "Nazi" when asked for any proof...… Proof that has yet to appear in any shape or form.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I like how people now is a douche bag and when they are punched for it they try to defend themselves on "They are repressing me!"

You don't actually have to be a douche bag. You just have to be labelled a douche bag.

The truth of the accusation is superfluous to requirements.

Yeah thats how it works. Being a douche bag is not an objetive value added to your life. People consider you a douche bag or not based in their subjetive opinion of you and your actions. I'm not talking about only this case, of course. But 15 years ago when something like this happened it would have been received with "Meh, two guys into a bar fighting because they had a disagrement" and not "Theres a conspirancy! They want to repress all form of political expresion that doesn't fit their world view!"

Like... what kind of political statements that are relevant can you make on a bar, at night? The only political discussion you can have in a context like that is the typical useless one that you could have with your friends drinking a beer, talking about how you would fix the world.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I see that Peregrine's "Punch a Nazi" philosophy is bearing fruit. A Nazi being anyone to the Right of Karl Marx...

Well done Peregrine. You're getting the society you wished for, where violence as a response to words is becoming normalized.

Don't expect sympathy when its YOU that is on the on the receiving end of that violence.

Wow, straw man much? Hambly is not a Nazi, and is not the target I have advocated violence against. Nor is anyone to the right of Marx a Nazi, outside of bizarre right-wing straw man attempts. This, as far as we can tell, is not "the world I wished for", it's just a drunk in a bar getting punched by another drunk . If the drunk in question wasn't a social media attention whore we would never have heard of any of this. Don't make more out of it than it actually is.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I also find it quite ironic that the only acceptable definition of "Fascist" seems to be one found in an "Intro to Political History 101" textbook, yet an all-encompassing vast net is used for the definition of "Nazi" when asked for any proof...… Proof that has yet to appear in any shape or form.

Yep, another dishonest post. I have not used an "all-encompassing vast net" to define Nazis. In fact, I have made explicit statements on multiple occasions that I'm talking about actual Nazis: the people parading around with Nazi flags, praising Hitler and his genocide, and advocating violence against the lesser races to create an all-white society. The only people talking about a broader definition of Nazis are the people dishonestly attempting to argue that I'm in favor of violence against anyone I disagree with, instead of in self defense against the most evil group of murderers in history.

And yes, the definition of fascism I have argued for is correct. There is a difference between fascism and authoritarianism, and using one term when you mean the other is not correct. Sorry if that is inconvenient for certain people and their politically-motivated desire to label their enemies "fascist" even when the term doesn't apply.

 Peregrine wrote:
[yes, the definition of fascism I have argued for is correct. There is a difference between fascism and authoritarianism, and using one term when you mean the other is not correct. Sorry if that is inconvenient for certain people and their politically-motivated desire to label their enemies "fascist" even when the term doesn't apply.

Your definition of Fascist is correct, but not all encompassing. It does have broader, and also correct, meanings as well. Using "exactisms" would be equally douchey if I said you were wrong about Nazis because there is a difference racist Hitler fanboys and actual card carrying members of the National Socialist Party (a particular distinction that was actually made in the 1940's).


Are Hambly's fans 100% made up of squeaky clean objectively nice people? No, they aren't. I'm sure there is a subsect of them that are total animals. However, insinuations that those are a major faction of his fanbase, and that he actively panders to them, is at best disingenuous.

I'll agree with you that if Hambly wasn't a pseudo internet celebrity we would likely not have heard about this. Then again, that's true of pretty much every action that happens to unknown people. Also, if he wasn't well-known the assault itself likely wouldn't have happened.

To be honest, fascim has nothing to do in this case so far. It looks more like a youtuber thought it was a good opportunity to catch some attention for his videos and having move views on his channel by claiming he was censored by GenCon, and some guys on the Extreme Right were more than happy to take his case as "proof" of the wrong doing/conspiracy of the Left/SJW.

There are indeed people who do provoke others so that they get assaulted and can act as the victim for their own reasons (political, money, and so on). Here, we have only one side of the story and to be honest, there seems to be quite a lot of loopholes. However, I don't see what the "Punch a Nazy" or fascism has to do here at all, nor claiming that the guy deserved to be punched in the face because of what he says on his videos. We just don't know what really happened, that's all.

 Sarouan wrote:
. However, I don't see what the "Punch a Nazy" or fascism has to do here at all, nor claiming that the guy deserved to be punched in the face because of what he says on his videos. We just don't know what really happened, that's all.

The assaulter was wearing a "Punch a Nazi" t-shirt. Apparently he has voiced this opinion before. Was this the motivation for this incident? I don't know, but that in and of itself is enough to make one wonder.

You're assuming a lot from a shirt. Maybe his "punch an donkey-cave" t-shirt was in the washer.

Do we have any details on this 'alleged assault' or has the whole thing turned out to be a non-story? I just see a bunch of Antifa vs Proud Boys crap in this thread but can't find an actual update on if the fighter actually occurred, what started it, and what the circumstances were.

This all seems rather trivial and tedious.

Aren't there more important and interesting things to worry about than whether two drunk wargamers have a punch-up in a bar?

Agent provocateur chats gak. Gets chinned. Had it coming.

That’s....that’s pretty much the story, yeah?

 Peregrine wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Let's all just chill the F out here.

Nice dodge there, making ridiculous comparisons and demonstrating that you don't know what "fascism" means and then hiding behind "let's all chill the F out" when called on it.

Magic cards are crap quality compared to what they used to be. WOTC did ban people that didn't technically violate their TOS. Removing any kind of gender pronoun from Magic cards is a bit eyerolly. WOTC stating they want to monitor your social media does seem a bit 1984. Having Anita Sarkesian as a guest speaker at comicon was, at best, a questionable decision.

MTG cards are poor quality? It's funny, but from what I've heard the most recent set got great reviews and a lot of the old stuff was pretty bad. There might be a valid argument about product quality, but his videos aren't calm and rational discussion of game design principles.

WOTC banning people is not an issue. AFAIK all of the cases that were mentioned were clear TFG behavior and people trying to hide behind the technicality that the TOS didn't explicitly ban their TFG behavior. Zero sympathy there.

Removing gender pronouns is just basic writing clarity. Using "their" instead of the awkward "his or her" saves space and sounds a lot more natural. The only reason to use "his or her" is the popular misconception by elementary school writing teachers that they/their as singular pronouns for a person of unknown/unstated gender is incorrect, when in reality it's the normal way people speak with hundreds of years of precedent behind it. Any benefit to non-binary people who feel excluded by binary male/female pronouns is a nice side effect, but even if that wasn't an issue at all it would still be the right thing to do.

Monitoring social media sounds 1984ish, but what are we really talking about here? Watching for stuff like the facebook group (which got people banned) where TFGs were rating female pro tour players on how hot they were and sharing offensive memes? No problem there, disruptive people are still a concern even if they're only being disruptive and TFGish on social media. Trying to monitor and ban people for stuff that isn't TFG behavior or harmful to the game? Not ok, but I'd like to see some evidence that WOTC is doing this.

Won't disagree with you on Anita Sarkeesian. She gets way more hate than she deserves, but she isn't really saying anything new and there are better options.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
LOL, no. Communism is a totalitarian state, same as Nazism, except it murdered more people. I get that you're in love with Fat Kim, but you don't get to call Soviet and North Korean gulags and death camps and purges "implementation failures". If you're a Commie apologist, you're worse than a neo-Nazi, and I won't have any further part discussing anything with you. Buh-bye

Uh, no. That's just ignorance of history and what communism actually means.

Communism is a proposed economic system involving collective ownership of capital. Violence is not an inherent part of it, communists would be perfectly happy if it was implemented through democratic vote and passing the appropriate laws. Communists are open to violent revolution, but only in the same way that republicans fought revolutions against the monarchy. The murders under Stalinism are not an inherent part of communism. They are the result of a murderous dictator who just happened to be communist, much like anti-communist dictators have murdered their perceived enemies. A typical communist is not going to look at a successful communist society with no gulags or murders and say "you know what we need is some mass murder".

Nazism is an ideology specifically dedicated to genocide. Exterminating the lesser races is its primary goal, an inherent part of the ideology that can not be separated from it. In fact, it is such an important goal of Nazism that the Nazis continued to divert increasing amounts of resources towards their genocide efforts even as they were losing the war, accepting a greater chance of defeat if it meant getting to kill more people. A typical Nazi would look at a hypothetical Nazi state where genocide is not occurring, wonder WTF is wrong with them, and demand to have more murders.

If you can't tell the difference between the two and why Nazism is far worse then it's a sad comment on your lack of morality.

You do realize that the Soviets were systematically killing off the Cossacks between 1918 and 1922 when Lenin was in power right? That wasn't to the same scale as what the Nazi's were doing but it was still a genocide no matter how you look at it. Don't get me wrong, Stalin's body count was much higher but saying that it only started with him is just not true. And when EVERY communist country so far has led it's leaders killing off or enslaving hundreds of thousands or millions of their own people you have to step back and acknowledge that the flaw might be with the system's ideologies and not with the specific leader.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Agent provocateur chats gak. Gets chinned. Had it coming.

That’s....that’s pretty much the story, yeah?

Has this Quartering fella ever denounced, attacked or targeted this other fella? Or, taking out the personalities involved: is chinning someone an acceptable response for gak talking or, dare I say, a difference of opinion?

Nothing in Communism calls for the systematic killing of people. That's what happens when you have dictators using 'Communism' to seize power.

Contrast with Nazi's who's doctrine does indeed call for the systematic killing of people.

 zedmeister wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Agent provocateur chats gak. Gets chinned. Had it coming.

That’s....that’s pretty much the story, yeah?

Has this Quartering fella ever denounced, attacked or targeted this other fella? Or, taking out the personalities involved: is chinning someone an acceptable response for gak talking or, dare I say, a difference of opinion?

He seems to be an Alt-Right Crybaby, opposed to women and change and anyone that’s not a whiny Alt-Right Crybaby. Think Alex Jones.

Provoke, get chinned. That’s entirely different from a mere difference of opinion.

Consider. You’re having a nice quiet drink, and someone starts having a go at you. This is someone confusing freedom of speech with freedom of consequence. This is not some lefty glassing a Tory Voter in the pub, just because they vote Tory. This isn’t a heated political conversation. This is someone giving it The Big I Am, including baseless accusations of paedophila here and there, and someone playing a little chin music with a tu’penny one up his bracket.

It’s not a sustained beating. It’s someone taking a too expedient method to shut his yap.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 zedmeister wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Agent provocateur chats gak. Gets chinned. Had it coming.

That’s....that’s pretty much the story, yeah?

Has this Quartering fella ever denounced, attacked or targeted this other fella? Or, taking out the personalities involved: is chinning someone an acceptable response for gak talking or, dare I say, a difference of opinion?

He seems to be an Alt-Right Crybaby, opposed to women and change and anyone that’s not a whiny Alt-Right Crybaby. Think Alex Jones.

Provoke, get chinned. That’s entirely different from a mere difference of opinion.

Consider. You’re having a nice quiet drink, and someone starts having a go at you. This is someone confusing freedom of speech with freedom of consequence. This is not some lefty glassing a Tory Voter in the pub, just because they vote Tory. This isn’t a heated political conversation. This is someone giving it The Big I Am, including baseless accusations of paedophila here and there, and someone playing a little chin music with a tu’penny one up his bracket.

It’s not a sustained beating. It’s someone taking a too expedient method to shut his yap.

You're a liar if you claim this is an accurate and honest description of the situation.

According to Hambly, he was approached by this guy who asked if he was The Quartering on Youtube. Then the guy assaulted him after confirming his identity.

This is not an ordinary bar fight in which someone was provoked in the heat of the moment by words spoken by the target of the assault. This was a pre-meditated targeted assault by someone who spotted a public figure who holds political views that he disagrees with. Hambly was not expressing those views at the bar, he was minding his own business.

His attacker took issue with things that Hambly has said on the internet, and sought him out in the real world.

By your logic, I'm well within my rights to seek you or Peregrine out in person and attempt to punch to punch your lights out for the things you're saying on Dakka Dakka.
Inciting, normalizing and celebrating illegal violence is a pretty douchebag thing to do IMO, no matter who the target is.

A bar fight seemingly not caught on their CCTV.

No Police record of a report.

Not that I’m accusing the Alt-Right of being serial liars (actually, tricked you, I’m doing exactly that).

But there’s just no evidence to support that this even happened.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
He seems to be an Alt-Right Crybaby, opposed to women and change and anyone that’s not a whiny Alt-Right Crybaby. Think Alex Jones.

Provoke, get chinned. That’s entirely different from a mere difference of opinion.

Consider. You’re having a nice quiet drink, and someone starts having a go at you. This is someone confusing freedom of speech with freedom of consequence. This is not some lefty glassing a Tory Voter in the pub, just because they vote Tory. This isn’t a heated political conversation. This is someone giving it The Big I Am, including baseless accusations of paedophila here and there, and someone playing a little chin music with a tu’penny one up his bracket.

It’s not a sustained beating. It’s someone taking a too expedient method to shut his yap.

I've had a brief glance at this Quartering and he's crass and a bit of dick, for definite. But I've seen nothing that warrants getting assaulted.

In fact, back to my original question and, putting aside the personalities involved, is hitting someone a measured response to being crass, rude and obnoxious? Is Alex Jones in line for a beating because of what he posts? ? Allow me to be blunt: if someone disagrees with what you've posted online to such a degree, would hitting you be a measured response?

 skyth wrote:
Nothing in Communism calls for the systematic killing of people. That's what happens when you have dictators using 'Communism' to seize power.

Contrast with Nazi's who's doctrine does indeed call for the systematic killing of people.

Except, you know, the Capitalist "oppressors" who rule and benefit from the Capitalist system and resist the Communist revolution? Overthrowing and eradicating the oppressing classes is the whole raison d'etre of Communism. Its historical revisionism to pretend otherwise.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Nothing in Communism calls for the systematic killing of people. That's what happens when you have dictators using 'Communism' to seize power.

Contrast with Nazi's who's doctrine does indeed call for the systematic killing of people.

Except, you know, the Capitalist "oppressors" who rule and benefit from the Capitalist system and resist the Communist revolution? Overthrowing and eradicating the oppressing classes is the whole raison d'etre of Communism. Its historical revisionism to pretend otherwise.

"You there, hand over your private property and means to production"

"No"

Now what?!

 zedmeister wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
He seems to be an Alt-Right Crybaby, opposed to women and change and anyone that’s not a whiny Alt-Right Crybaby. Think Alex Jones.

Provoke, get chinned. That’s entirely different from a mere difference of opinion.

Consider. You’re having a nice quiet drink, and someone starts having a go at you. This is someone confusing freedom of speech with freedom of consequence. This is not some lefty glassing a Tory Voter in the pub, just because they vote Tory. This isn’t a heated political conversation. This is someone giving it The Big I Am, including baseless accusations of paedophila here and there, and someone playing a little chin music with a tu’penny one up his bracket.

It’s not a sustained beating. It’s someone taking a too expedient method to shut his yap.

I've had a brief glance at this Quartering and he's crass and a bit of dick, for definite. But I've seen nothing that warrants getting assaulted.

In fact, back to my original question and, putting aside the personalities involved, is hitting someone a measured response to being crass, rude and obnoxious? Is Alex Jones in line for a beating because of what he posts? ? Allow me to be blunt: if someone disagrees with what you've posted online to such a degree, would hitting you be a measured response?

When they’re spreading lies and forcing division in any community?

By all means, stick one on them. Alex Jones in particular spreads some seriously disgusting bile. Child Actors, claiming school shootings are faked. Tommy ‘Stephen Yaxley-Lennon’ Robinson - serial liar. Britain First, serial liars. All helping to spread fear and mistrust to line their own pockets.

Chin them. It Is Never Wrong To Punch A Nazi. Ever. It’s the only thing that stops them.

 zedmeister wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Nothing in Communism calls for the systematic killing of people. That's what happens when you have dictators using 'Communism' to seize power.

Contrast with Nazi's who's doctrine does indeed call for the systematic killing of people.

Except, you know, the Capitalist "oppressors" who rule and benefit from the Capitalist system and resist the Communist revolution? Overthrowing and eradicating the oppressing classes is the whole raison d'etre of Communism. Its historical revisionism to pretend otherwise.

"You there, hand over your private property and means to production"

"No"

Now what?!

"Dmitri, bring me my machine gun!"

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
When they’re spreading lies and forcing division in any community?

By all means, stick one on them. Alex Jones in particular spreads some seriously disgusting bile. Child Actors, claiming school shootings are faked. Tommy ‘Stephen Yaxley-Lennon’ Robinson - serial liar. Britain First, serial liars. All helping to spread fear and mistrust to line their own pockets.

Chin them. It Is Never Wrong To Punch A Nazi. Ever. It’s the only thing that stops them.

Wow, alright, so you're actually advocating political violence? And you're alright being hit back in response? And how do you determine the bad 'uns? Whose "truth" do (the royal) we believe? That's a dark road to travel down...

I'll state that if someone is spreading lies, etc challenge them. Challenge their opinions. Show facts and defeat them in the public arena. Don't go for the guns or fists.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
When they’re spreading lies and forcing division in any community?

So... its ok to hit Anita Sarkeesian now?

Weird standard but ok.

Well the public arena seems to have given up on facts, so that last part is going to be a bit hard.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Chin them. It Is Never Wrong To Punch A Nazi. Ever. It’s the only thing that stops them.

Its a direct and deliberate escalation that reinforces the Nazi victim narrative and gives them carte blanche to respond in kind with even greater violence.
You punch a Nazi.
And he'll come back and stab you.

Is that what you want?

Using violence to suppress political groups merely strengthens them and drives more people to their cause, unless you're willing to go all the way and obliterate them with overwhelming lethal violence. But then you've just created a totalitarian state having sacrificed all the Liberal values that our societies were built on. Tolerance. Rule of Law. Freedom of Speech.

Is that what you want?

All that liberalism sure helped stop the Nazis last time around.

FWIW I don't think we're at a point where violence is required, but pretending that it's never justified is just baffling. We bombed the gak our of Germany last time around, it wasn't solved through reasoned debate.

In responding to an alert, it looks like physical violence is being advocated / contemplated against specific people in this thread. This is not something we allow - at all - on Dakka. I will be following up with some of you via PM to make sure you understand this.

For everyone else, please remember this for the future - it's OK to express strong disagreement, but it is never OK to advocate that others take physical violence against specific people when posting on Dakka Dakka.